General AGW discussion thread

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Perhaps not with the solar cycle, but certainly with sunspots.

But my post was specifically about the solar cycle. Over the 11 year solar cycle there is nowhere near enough of a change in the energy reaching the earth to make measurable changes in global temperature. The swing in solar output is simply too small to make a measurable change.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

It's not perfect (what correlation is?), to be sure, but it's certainly there.

I find it interesting that the more recent the time frame, the stronger the correlation. Indeed, priot to about 4,500 years ago, it apparently flips, with there being a distinct negative correlation.

I wonder what's up with that?

That flip pretty much rules out any real statistical correlation. Your eyes are simply finding patterns that are not really there.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Still, this much closer examination of the last 400 years (C-14 indications of temps in this graph) is quite telling.

First of all your second link isn’t to a proxy for temperature it’s a proxy for sunspot numbers. Of course it agrees with the observed sunspot numbers, that why it’s a proxy…

No one is suggesting solar output but these tend to be small as the sun is remarkably stable in it’s output. It may increase or decrease it’s energy output by 1/10 of a % every now and again but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to nearly a 2% increase in solar output.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by lomiller1

But my post was specifically about the solar cycle. Over the 11 year solar cycle there is nowhere near enough of a change in the energy reaching the earth to make measurable changes in global temperature. The swing in solar output is simply too small to make a measurable change.

True, which is why I mentioned sunspots, rather than the solar cycle. You've yet responded to the sunspots.

That flip pretty much rules out any real statistical correlation.

Wrong. There is a high positive correlation over 1/2 of it, and a high negative correlation over the other half. But that's just for the 2,000 year data. Over the last 400 years, the correlation is quite high.

Your eyes are simply finding patterns that are not really there.

Correlation is measured mathematically, not by one's eyeball.

First of all your second link isn’t to a proxy for temperature it’s a proxy for sunspot numbers.

I think you mean my third link, not my second link. The caption of the third link is:

"Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure."

It's a proxy for "solar activity," not sunspots. Nor "temps" as I errantly stated in my post.

Of course it agrees with the observed sunspot numbers, that why it’s a proxy…

Evidently, you're not familiar with the use of poxies as markers for other activity...

No one is suggesting solar output but these tend to be small as the sun is remarkably stable in it’s output. It may increase or decrease it’s energy output by 1/10 of a % every now and again but doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to nearly a 2% increase in solar output.

The sunspot theories do not argue a direct cause of global warming via solar activity. Rather, they argue an indirect change in the ability of Earth to either retain or lose heat. The correlations are far too strong to ignore. Since it's highly unlikely any Earth phenomenon is causing sunspots (snicker), it's far more likely there is something happening in conjunction with sunspot activity which affects the Earth's regulation of its temperature.

We may yet find the causal factor is extrasolar, and may be either causing both sunspots and affecting Earth's temperatures, or that it's causing sunspots, which themselves are changing Earth's temp regulation. There's a lot we still don't know about our immediate galactic neighborhood. For example, the Local Interstellar Cloud, commonly called the Local Fluff, has a temperature of 6000 deg C.

For example: According to this Science at NASA page, the Local Fluff's effects on Earth are effectively cancelled by the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field:

"It has little effect on Earth because the solar wind and the Sun's magnetic field are able to hold the wispy cloud at bay."

What happens when the Sun's magnetic field is somewhat, even slightly, distorted by sunspots? That may have absolutely no effect on the Sun's irradiance of the Earth, but how does that change in the Sun's magnetic field affect the Local Fluff's effects on Earth???

Furthermore, there are more dense clouds out there, such as the Sco-Cen complex, which is sending a stream of interstellar "cloudlets" in our direction. According to Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago:

"If we ran into one, it would compress the Sun's magnetic field and allow more cosmic rays to penetrate the inner solar system, with unknown effects on climate and life."

Hmmm... That's interesting. And it raises the question, again, about the effect that sunpots' change has on the Sun's magnetic field on comic ray penetration of the inner solar system.

My point is this: When it comes to global warming, it is very myopic to focus all of our attention here on Earth. There's a LOT more going on out there (topside) than most people realize. It behooves us to exhaust those possibilites before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars non-effectively attempting to stop something here on Earth which may turn out to have exceedingly little to do with man, and everything to do with star-stuff.

It's enough to make me want to Starscream.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Tesarra

Hang on. My sense of fairplay is offended. We're supposed to accept your correlation between sunspot counts and temperature (which completely breaks down some 4500 years ago) and dismiss the correlations between atmospheric composition and temperature?

Why would you do that? Correlations are just that: correlations. They do not imply causality. When strong enough, over a sizeable duration, they do substantiate, however, that either one causes the other, or that both are the result of a common cause.

...you want to be absolutely sure that there's no other possible cause before our governments commit any money to reducing our output of greenhouse gases?

Wow. That's ballsy...

I like "thrifty," better, or "prudent" or "wise" or even "sensical," but if you prefer ballsy, sure, why not? Go with ballsy.

[dmr81]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

it raises the question, again, about the effect that sunpots' change has on the Sun's magnetic field on comic ray penetration of the inner solar system.

The cosmic ray idea is considered ATM. The proposed mechanism has several problems and it does not show any correlation with temperature during the recent period of global warming.

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

True, which is why I mentioned sunspots, rather than the solar cycle. You've yet responded to the sunspots.

Why should I respond to your attempt to change the subject?

I will, however, say that Sunspots are a proxy for small changes in solar intensity that accompany them. These can have a small but measurable effect if nothing else is going on, but the amount of energy involved is small beside the greenhouse effect.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Wrong. There is a high positive correlation over 1/2 of it, and a high negative correlation over the other half. But that's just for the 2,000 year data. Over the last 400 years, the correlation is quite high.

If you are allowed to “flip the polarity” willy nilly or cherry pick subsets of the series without a physical basis you can match almost any two time series.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Correlation is measured mathematically, not by one's eyeball

Not in your post is wasn’t…

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Evidently, you're not familiar with the use of poxies as markers for other activity...

Eh? You commented on the agreement between sunspot numbers and a proxy for sunspot numbers and said it was “quite telling” I merely pointed out that it’s not at all surprising for a proxy to agree with the thing it’s a proxy for.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

The sunspot theories do not argue a direct cause of global warming via solar activity. Rather, they argue an indirect change in the ability of Earth to either retain or lose heat.

Such theories belong in ATM for a reason.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

For example: According to this Science at NASA page,

That article has nothing to do with climate change, and discusses the possible effect of cosmic radiation from a nearby *supernova* which is ridiculously far from any normal change in cosmic radiation.

Originally Posted by mugaliens

My point is this: When it comes to global warming, it is very myopic to focus all of our attention here on Earth. There's a LOT more going on out there (topside) than most people realize. It behooves us to exhaust those possibilites before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars non-effectively attempting to stop something here on Earth which may turn out to have exceedingly little to do with man, and everything to do with star-stuff.

Sure there are other things going on and none of them change what we already know about greenhouse gasses. When you hear a gun shot and turn the corner to see someone holding a smoking gun over the body of someone who was just shot you do not investigate every other person in the city to see if they were responsible before arresting the guy with the gun.

I also take issue with your claim there is some huge cost involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most developed countries already produce less then half the CO2 per capita as The US, Canada or Australia and the gap is widening. Simply getting those three countries down the the per capita use of the rest of the developed world would make a huge cut in global greenhouse gas emissions.

[Joe Durnavich]

Originally Posted by Tesarra

I get what you're saying about not wanting to throw trillions of dollars at a problem only to find it a complete waste. However, as I mentioned a few posts back, it's not as if that money just disappears into a pit somewhere. Those dollars would represent investment in new technologies, new industries and new or improved sources of energy. Even if, after all human effort possible was expended to reduce CO₂ emissions and sequester CO₂ into some form of long-term storage, we ultimately were unable to stop global warming, we would still realize some important benefits to our economy and well-being as a direct result of the efforts!

But is there scientific support for this?

Science has presented a case for an anthropogenically influenced global warming trend. But it is not clear that science can make a case for specific threats and dangers to humanity. It is not clear that science is in a position to make a case that government action can mitigate such threats or that it is even necessary to. It is not clear at all that increasing the power of governments over its citizens and seizing more in taxes will lead to a significant number of viable technologies. It is not clear that the resulting technologies will compensate for the technologies that did not come to be because of the forced redirection of resources to "green" technologies.

Intertwined with this are the moral issues. Global warming science is what it is. That's fine. But you want to take from me my SUV and my 300-watt halogen light. You want to control what industries my personal income is invested in. You want to burden me with an even larger and more powerful government bureaucracy. I think science is overstepping its bounds.

[ArgoNavis]

Originally Posted by Tesarra

Scientists have discovered strong evidence that we may be harming our planet (and, by the way, it's the only one we've got), and are acting as concerned citizens in an attempt to bring government attention to a threat with potential to drastically alter all of our lives and livelihoods. There may be a cost for taking action on this threat, but there are rewards for doing so even if the threat is later demonstrated not to be of human origin.

Actually, I don't consider that there is any evidence whatsoever that "we" may be harming our planet. In fact, most environmental measures over the last 30 years are all positive.

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases". This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years. It could easily be noise in the data.

It is also why temperatures as measured (as best a "global" temperature can be measured) are not correlated to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time. If there was ever an hypothesis that increases in atmospheric CO2 forces "climate change" then it has been falsified. It is a belief that only persists due to vested interests.

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured, the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average, temperatures are refusing to rise and the incidence of extreme cold weather events appears to be increasing, contrary to the predictions of AR4. Yet the hysteria of what "might" happen continues.

The effect of a carbon tax is really quite profound, as it not only reduces current economic growth, but also future growth as resources are diverted by government fiat to poor investments in marginal technologies like wind turbines and so called "green" cars. It doesn't take much of an anlyitical brain to uncover what a mindless mantra this actually is. It is code word for lower living standards with high cost outcomes.

[ArgoNavis]

Of course, there has been other scientists who challenge this dogma, of interest should be the Manhatten Declaration of March this year, which 400 signed.

The Declaration stated that "Global warming" is not a global crisis; affirmed that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans;
carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but rather a necessity for all life;
that the supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false;
that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future of global climate. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
Noted that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.

This, along with the total lack of evidence, should be enough to raise some slither of doubt about this fraud.

[dmr81]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Actually, I don't consider that there is any evidence whatsoever that "we" may be harming our planet.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urba...and-effect.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...roposphere.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

It is also why temperatures as measured (as best a "global" temperature can be measured) are not correlated to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...Dioxide-en.svg

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time. If there was ever an hypothesis that increases in atmospheric CO2 forces "climate change" then it has been falsified.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/...-fooled-again/

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/091608.html
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

the incidence of extreme cold weather events appears to be increasing

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...agga-wagga.php

[dmr81]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Of course, there has been other scientists who challenge this dogma, of interest should be the Manhatten Declaration of March this year, which 400 signed.

Provide details of any of them who are climate scientists.

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

affirmed that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...arm-period.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but rather a necessity for all life

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

that the supposed 'consensus' among climate experts are false

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Noted that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-negatives.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

This, along with the total lack of evidence

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

should be enough to raise some slither of doubt about this fraud.

Appeal to conspiracy.

[Joe Durnavich]

Originally Posted by Tesarra

Whoah, those are some pretty tall leaps! Who said anything about increasing power over citizens or "seizing" taxes? Who proposed taking away private property or making beaurocracies more powerful?

Originally Posted by Tesarra

Let's dial down the drama one or two notches, ok? As I understand them, most of the proposals on the table use existing governmental powers, tax bases and beaureaus to implement policies that would encourage reductions or offsets to CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions.

You may be reading in the wrong sort of drama. True, my post was in response to the comments about throwing "trillions of dollars at a problem." We are on the verge of formally classifying carbon dioxide (or even worse, "carbon") as a pollutant precisely so that the world's governments can redirect trillions of dollars in an attempt to reduce that pollutant. The drama is not so much that we are empowering big bad evil governments, but that this is being offered as a necessary course of action without anything approaching the scientific rigor that supports global warming claims.

There is plenty of science in support of global warming. Just look at the posts between ArgoNavis and dmr81 above. As science does, it continually refines itself amidst a sea of critical review. The solutions being offered to global warming, however, are stated as a given. It is just assumed that government action is the right course of action or even a necessary course of action. Science provides for itself many feedback mechanisms so that it can detect and correct its errors as quickly as possible. When the discussion turns to problem solving, however, the solutions offered seem to be based more on intuition and gut feeling with no real guidance apparent. Has Kyoto been a net benefit or a net loss to us? Is science even capable of answering such a question?

I believe market mechanisms will select which products and services "win" rather than some heavy-handed government intervention. Let me illustrate with an over-simplified example of the SUV. It's easily conceivable that licensing and operating a Hummer or other "gas guzzler" would be more expensive if these ideas were implemented, but folks will then be directly, economically, encouraged to make "greener" and smarter decisions about what kind of vehicle they can afford to drive. All of the decision making authority is left exactly where it belongs: in the hands of the individual consumer.

Do you see what I mean? It is assumed as a given that governmental policies that encourage "greener" decisions by the consumer will lead to a healthier environment. Such policies may be intuitive, but science was developed, of course, partly to overcome intuition. The US did not sign Kyoto, but as I remember, our rate of CO2 emissions growth was lower than about 75% of the nations that ratified it.

Science is not some body of people who are attempting a coup. Science is a method of problem solving and thinking about the physical world around us.

Then where is the science that shows us that rising sea levels are problem to begin with, that shows us that such-and-such a governmental policy will solve the problem, that shows us what we will have to sacrifice to attain it, and that shows us the result will be a net benefit? This is a far more difficult area of study because it involves human behavior. It is not clear that turning control of resources over to politicians will lead to benefits that are equal to or better than the benefits that would have come about if those resources remained the private property of those who developed or produced them.

Scientists have discovered strong evidence that we may be harming our planet (and, by the way, it's the only one we've got), and are acting as concerned citizens in an attempt to bring government attention to a threat with potential to drastically alter all of our lives and livelihoods. There may be a cost for taking action on this threat, but there are rewards for doing so even if the threat is later demonstrated not to be of human origin.

Notice again how it starts out with science making a case and just grades right on over into politics as if the same basis applied. I am dialing up the drama a bit to draw that distinction, which I think is not always appreciated enough in these discussions. Freedom deserves an avid defense.

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

This is why satellite measurements of the southern hemisphere show zero increases in temperatures over the last 30 years. It could easily be noise in the data.

Or it could be you cherry picking whatever part of the globe happens to fit your belief system. As a whole GLOBAL warming continues unabated.

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Temperatures have generally been flatlining for some time.

Watts is hardly a reliable source.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/...-up-with-that/

In any case the warming trend continues unabated. It’s only by cherry picking the (at the time) extremely warm El Nino year for a starting point that you get any other result.

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

The claimed rise in global temperatures (of a miniscule 0.4degC) is most likely the signal of urbanisation, not "greenhouse gases".

First of all the effects of urbanization have been removed from ground station data since the late 90’s. This is why the ground station data agrees with satellite data like RSS, at least as much as you would expect given ground stations and satellites are not measuring exactly the same thing. As for the amount of warming

Originally from Meehl et al 2004

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

The Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent ever measured,

You’re a year to late on that claim and it’s wrong to boot. There was an unusually high noise spike in Antarctic sea ice last year, but it wasn’t statistically significant. Over the last 12 months Antarctic sea ice has continued to hover around it’s average since Satellite observation began. There is some evidacne from whaling records that the currnet norms for Antartic sea ice are well below what they were until the mid-early 70’s when they dipped then stabilized at current levels

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

the Arctic sea ice is at its long term average

Not even close

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This, even though Artic sea ice is limited by the size of the Artic ocean meaning winter extents can’t significantly change.

[ArgoNavis]

Originally Posted by lomiller1

In any case the warming trend continues unabated. It’s only by cherry picking the (at the time) extremely warm El Nino year for a starting point that you get any other result.

No it doesn't. If anything it is cooling.

Cute graph you posted. Is it supposed to mean something?

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's? Easy, just tweek the model to give you the answer. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How about a future prediction?

The Arctic. See also.

"..are likely to be informed by Swedish polar researchers that there is in fact very little concrete proof tying global warming to climate changes in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Some indeed argue that there is more change in today’s political rhetoric than there is in the environment."

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years. Ice here.

I know it is pointless to argue with religious fanatics, but the ice simply isn't melting.

[dmr81]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

If anything it is cooling.

The warming trend has not stopped. In noisy data of this sort it is expected that the noise will mask the trend for short periods, as demonstrated here.

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's? Easy, just tweek the model to give you the answer. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

How about a future prediction?

Same weather v climate fallacy you posted on the other thread.

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years. Ice here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm

the ice simply isn't melting.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/091608.html

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

I know it is pointless to argue with religious fanatics, but the ice simply isn't melting.

ArgoNavis, you have been warned before about using this kind of comment by ToSeek in this post on this very page. Like ToSeek said: To quote Rule 2 of this forum, "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them.

I think it might be good for you to take a few days off, to cool down and reconsider your comments.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

most record of land based temperatures in the Antarctic show a flatline for the last 30 years.

Well, Duh!

You're talking about measuring the temperatures at a heat sink and wondering why they don't change.

That's similar to the disingenuous way of claiming there's not warming by arguing from the temperatures of the Atlantic ocean which has one end in a big lump of ice.
The thing to measure in a case like that isn't temperature but rate of melting, which for arctic ice is actually more than predicted by even the pessimistic models.

As for the arctic, the area covered by ice, which is what you're arguing from, is governed by multiple factors one of which is rate of movement of glaciers which have speeded up drastically.
This means more ice is transported to the outer areas, resulting in greater covered area even through the total volume is dwindling.

[lomiller1]

Originally Posted by ArgoNavis

Can I produce a graph in 2004 that "predicts" what has happened in the 1980's and 1990's?

If it’s peer reviewed like the one I posted go right ahead. I suggest, however you consider the reason no peer reviewed graph supporting your position exists.

BTW you also seem to ignore the fact I told you Antarctic ice hasn’t changed since the late 70’s are trying tom present it as a dramatic conclusion. Be a man. Acknowledge your error and move on, don’t adopt a very slightly modified version of my statements verbatim and claim they were what you were saying all along. Its poor etiquette

I also note that you the cherry picking of 1998 as the starting year, exactly as I suggested you were…

[William]

Many people have anchored their belief in AWG (CO2) on the Hockey Stick graph.

Is the methodology used to create the Hockey Stick graph valid? No. Is the Hockey Stick conclusion valid? No.

What are the scientific implications that the widely distributed Hockey Stick graph is knowingly incorrect?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Some people have stated that 90% of the 20th century warming of 0.5C is due to AWG C02.

The remaining 10% of 20th century warming is due to increased solar output.

Why is the planet now starting to cool?

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

The effect of CO2 warming is supposedly greatest in high latitude regions. Why has the Antarctic not warmed? Why are record cold winter temperatures now being set in the Northern Hemisphere?

There is evidence in the proxy data that the planet semi-periodically abruptly cools. What caused the past abrupt drops in planetary temperature?

[lomiller1]

On the internet anyone can say anything they want, you can just look at random bloggers like McKitrick and take them at face value, you need to see if their statements are backed up with peer reviewed literature or if they are arguing from self authority. Arguments from self authority only carry weight if the person in question is a legitimate authority in the field. Ross McKitrick is not an authority, he has no relevant education and has published no peer reviewed papers pertaining to this subject.

What has been published are more then a dozen separate large scale climate reconstructions, and they all show the hockey stick pattern. What has not been published is a papers that refutes these papers, or any paper that shows significantly different results.

[William]

In reply to Lomiller's comment: Are there published papers that show the AWG hockey stick is incorrect?

Yes there are.

The mistake made by Mann et al. is fundamental and invalidates the conclusion of Mann et al. Mann et al made a basic mathematical mistake that invalidates the conclusion of the paper.

Mann et al.'s analysis made the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) appear to not occur. Other published data using different temperature proxy data indicates the Medieval Warm Period did occur. There is supporting historical documentation that shows the MWP did occurred.

The issue is not whether planetary temperature rose during the 20th century. Planetary temperature did rise during the 20th century. The issue is that planetary temperatures also rose during MWP.

As C02 levels did not rise during the MWP the reason for the Global warming for the MWP is not AWG. There must therefore be another first order forcing function that can warm the planet that is not address by the IPCC.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00002

Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series S. McIntyre et al.

Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance by S. McIntyre et al.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/2004GL021750.pdf

The ‘‘hockey stick’’ shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. [1998, 1999] has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the ‘‘dominant pattern of variance’’. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

[William]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081230/...r-dba1618.html

Currently the warmest year on record (My comment, from the Medieval Warm Period to now.) is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52C - well above the 1961 to 1990 long-term average of 14C.

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

It has been stated that the 20th century warming is 90% AWG and 10% solar.

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by William

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

You're mistaking weather for climate again.

[William]

In reply to HenrikOlsen: You're mistaking weather for climate again.

Henrik,

Was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) climate or weather?

Were the past abrupt climate changes (cooling), climate or weather? Note the abrupt climate changes are semi-periodic.

The 100 kyr re-occurring glacial period (Canada, Northern US States, and Northern Europe are covered by a 2 mile thick ice sheet for around 100 kyr), is it climate or weather?

My point is there have been very large climate changes in the past. Cold changes in the climate are not beneficial to life on the planet. We are at the end of the interglacial period.

Solar insolation at the critical 60 degree latitude north is the same as the coldest point of the last glacial period.

Why is the current cooling change assumed to be benign?

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by William

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081230/...r-dba1618.html

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

Perhaps I'm confused, the short article you linked to seems to be about warming not cooling.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44C, was 0.21C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."

[William]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post: http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...l#post1403096:

Perhaps I'm confused, the short article you linked to seems to be about warming not cooling.

The article I quoted noted that AWG global warming stopped in 1998. The article I quoted stated for no scientific reason that 2009 will be warmer.

What matters is:

1) What percentage of the 20th century warming was attributable to CO2. 90% or 5%?

2) Is the planet about to abruptly cool? As noted solar insolation at the critical 60 degree North latitude is the same as it was at the coldest period of the last glacial period. There are semi-periodic abruptly cooling periods in the proxy record. Glacial periods last for 100kyr and are periodic.

Past interglacial ended abruptly. Based on the length of past interglacial this interglacial is about to end.

Life on this planet is carbon based. CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 120 million years.

More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.

If the 20th century warming was not due to CO2 and the planet is about to abruptly cool, then AWG is not the problem.

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by William

The article I quoted noted that AWG global warming stopped in 1998. The article I quoted stated for no scientific reason that 2009 will be warmer.

No it doesn't. The entire article is only five sentences long.

What matters is:

...not misrepresenting sources.

[William]

If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

The warmest year on "record" was 1998 (.5C above mean). 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were cooler than 1998.

It is a fact that planetary temperatures are no longer increasing.

It has been stated that the 20th century warming is 90% AWG and 10% solar.

If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?

[Ronald Brak]

More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.

Because everyone knows that the current difference between deserts and forests is the amount of CO2.

[William]

The Hockey Stick graph via data cherry picking and mathematical manipulation removed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), see attached two published papers.

Other analysis shows the MWP in the 15th century was warmer than the 20th century.

As C02 levels were not high in the 15th century there must be some other first order climate forcing function.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00002

“Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series”

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, "MBH98" hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

This is the second paper that invalidates the Hockey Stick paper.

“Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance”

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/2004GL021750.pdf

These lecture notes summarize the Hockey Stick issue.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

[William]

In reply to Ronald Brak:

William:
More C02 is beneficial to planet life and will reduce desertification.

Ronald,
I believe few people appear to understand C3 plants and CO2 starvation. There is a myth that a warmer planet with more CO2 would have increased desertification. That is not correct.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1692178

Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution.

Most plants use a C3 process for photosynthesis, which is effective in warm moist climates with high levels of CO2. When CO2 levels drop the C3 plants produce more stomata which cause the plant to lose more water. Increasing CO2 levels enables the plant to produce less stomata and hence lose less water.

When the planet is warmer there is more rain and moisture. During the ice ages the CO2 dropped to 180 ppm which caused some plants to die due to low CO2. In addition the planet was very dry. There is a ten fold increase in atmospheric dust deposited in the Green Land ice sheet during the glacial phase which indicates a significant increase in desertification.

Due to CO2 starvation and a lack of water during the last glacial phase one third of the current Amazon rain forest changed to C4 grasses.


http://wc.pima.edu/~bfiero/tucsoneco...osynthesis.htm